J.G., on behalf of minor child, K.G. v. Board of Education of the Township of Lumberton, Burlington County, 10/5/26 (#398-26)

398-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 12515-25
Agency Dkt. No. 182-6/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.G., on behalf of minor child, K.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Lumberton, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Lumberton Township
Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto have been reviewed and considered.
In December 2024, petitioner’s child, K.G., was involved in an incident in the school gym.
A group of five girls approached K.G., and they all exchanged words and gestures. Two other girls
then approached and pushed K.G. to the floor. The other students were disciplined according to
the district’s code of conduct, with consequences ranging from lunch detentions to out-of-school
suspensions, depending on each student’s level of culpability. However, the Board determined
that the incident was not an act of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). 	Petitioner
appealed.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the district’s anti-bullying coordinator
(ABC) conducted a thorough and prompt investigation and concluded that the incident was a

2
result of mutual conflict rather than HIB. 	The ALJ noted that petitioner did not identify any
distinguishing characteristic of K.G., which is required under the law for an act to constitute HIB;
while petitioner argued that there was a power imbalance because there were seven other
students against K.G., the ALJ found that a power imbalance alone is insufficient to substantiate
a finding of HIB. 	Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that petitioner had failed to show that the
Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that all of the requisite criteria for an act of HIB were
met; she contends that the aspect of an imbalance of power is crucial to the decision. 	In
response, the Board argues that petitioner has not identified any distinguishing characteristic of
K.G., so all of the statutory criteria have not been met. The Board also cites to case law supporting
the ALJ’s conclusion that a power imbalance is insufficient on its own to support a finding of HIB.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board’s HIB determination
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act) defines
HIB as:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic
communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of
incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated etither
by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory
disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes
place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a
school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of
P.L. 2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of
other students and that:
a. 	a 	reasonable 	person 	should 	know, 	under 	the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally
harming a student or damaging the student's property, or placing

3
a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his
person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group of students; or
c. 	creates a hostile educational environment for the
student by interfering with a student's education or by severely or
pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to the student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
In sum, a finding of HIB requires three elements under the Act. First, the conduct must
be reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic expressly
identified in the statute, or by any other distinguishing characteristic. Second, the conduct must
substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the
school. 	Third, one of the three conditions set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) must be
satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex Cnty., Commissioner Decision No.
510-20 (Feb. 4, 2020).
Here, petitioner has not identified any distinguishing characteristic of K.G. that meets the
criteria of the statute. Petitioner argues that because her daughter was facing a group of seven
other students, there was a power imbalance. 	However, a power imbalance alone – without
another distinguishing characteristic – is not sufficient to meet the statutory criteria required for
an act to constitute HIB. 	See, e.g., Klapach v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Fort Lee,
Commissioner Decision No. 79-21 (Apr. 6, 2021); J.E. and R.E. v. Hunterdon Central Regional Bd.
of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 188-14 (Initial Decision, Sept. 28, 2017), aff’d, Commissioner Decision
No. 366-17 (Dec. 21, 2017). 	In the absence of any distinguishing characteristic, the Board’s
decision that K.G. was not the victim of an act of HIB was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.

4
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 5, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	October 6, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 182-6/25
J.G. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, K.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF LUMBERTON BOARD OF
EDUCATION, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
J.G., petitioner, pro se
Susan Hodges, Esq., for respondent (Parker McCay, PA, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 13, 2026 Decided: July 13, 2026
BEFORE MICHAEL R. STANZIONE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent, the Township of Lumberton Board of Education (Board or District),
upheld a harassment, bullying, or intimidation (HIB) determination, finding that on
December 12, 2024, petitioner J.G.’s daughter, K.G., was not a victim of HIB. Should the
HIB conclusions stand? Yes. Respondent’s determinations are entitled to a presumption

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
2
of correctness, and petitioner has not established that the decisions were arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2025, the Board upheld a February 21, 2025, finding that K.G. was
not a victim of HIB on December 12, 2024. On June 10, 2025, petitioner J.G., on behalf
of K.G., appealed the Board's decision of March 13, 2025, to the Department of Education
(DOE). The DOE transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on July 14, 2025, to be heard as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
After several prehearing conference calls, I held the hearing on February 10, 2026,
but kept the record open for the parties to obtain transcripts and provide post-hearing
submissions. I closed the record on April 13, 2026. I received an extension to submit the
initial decision in this case, and the due date was moved from May 28, 2026, to July 13,
2026.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS
The FIND the following FACTS were stipulated to and accepted as FACT:
1. Petitioner J.G. is the parent of K.G.
2. K.G. attended Bobby’s Run School, located in Lumberton, New Jersey.
3. The incident happened on December 12, 2024.
4. The incident happened during gym class.
5. Following the December 12, 2024, incident, petitioner filed a HIB 338 form
requesting an investigation into whether the alleged incident constituted an
act of HIB.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
3
6. On January 24, 2025, Lisely Mendez, Principal, filed a HIB 338 form
requesting an investigation into whether the alleged incident constituted an
act of HIB.
7. As part of the investigation, K.G. was interviewed.
8. As part of the investigation, alleged offenders A.J., M.K., Z.C., T.Y., I.L.,
A.T., and V.W. and witnesses I.O., A.A., and B.T. were interviewed.
9. The interviews related to the investigation occurred on January 29, 2025,
January 31, 2025, and February 3, 2025.
10. The investigation was completed on February 5, 2025.
11. On February 20, 2025, the results of the investigation were presented to the
Board.
12. On February 21, 2025, respondent sent petitioner a letter stating that the
result of the investigation was inconclusive.
13. On March 11, 2025, an appeal hearing was held before the Board of
Education.
14. On March 13, 2025, respondent sent a letter to petitioner that the finding of
an inconclusive HIB had been affirmed.
Based upon a review of the testimony and the documentary evidence presented
and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and assess the credibility of the
witnesses who testified, I FIND the following pertinent FACTS and accept as FACT the
testimony set forth below.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
4
On December 12, 2024, K.G. was involved in an incident with several other girls
in the school gym. R-G, R-H, R-I, R-J, R-K, R-L, R-M, R-N, and R-O. During the
altercation, a group of girls approached K.G. and, following an exchange of words and
gestures by all parties, two other girls subsequently and separately pushed K.G. to the
floor. R-G, R-H, R-I, R-J, R-K, R-L, R-M, R-N, and R-O. Following this incident, K.G.
provided a Student Incident Statement regarding the event in the gym. The Student
Incident Statement led to discipline being imposed by the District against various students
who violated the District’s code of conduct, ranging from lunch detentions all the way up
to out-of-school suspensions based on varying levels of culpability.
Following K.G.’s initial statement made on the same day of the incident, on
January 24, 2025, both petitioner and Principal Mendez filled out separate 338 forms to
initiate a HIB investigation related to the December incident. The District also reviewed
video footage of the incident, which showed some amount of the confrontation and K.G.
being pushed. However, the video lacked audio and may not have captured the whole of
the incident.
James Colon (Colon), assistant principal and anti-bullying coordinator, testified
that the Board insisted that a HIB investigation should be initiated following an informal
hearing regarding the incident that occurred on December 12, 2024. Colon found that
K.G. as well as the group of girls who approached and eventually pushed K.G. appeared
to be exchanging words and gestures that appeared aggressive in nature, indicating
conflict rather than HIB. This was not disputed by petitioner, who admits that K.G. was
also exchanging words and gestures with the other girls.
The Board did not simply accept the determination that the December 12 incident
constituted conflict; the Board wanted to ensure that the incident was investigated to
determine whether an act of HIB had occurred. On February 21, the Board of Education
sent a letter to petitioner indicating that the District had not found evidence that K.G. had
been “the target of the investigated act of harassment, intimidation or bullying.” R-T.
Following this letter, the Board held an appeal hearing with petitioner on March 11, 2025,
and, following the executive session hearing, affirmed its initial determination that K.G.
had not been the target of HIB. R-U.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
5
J.G., on behalf of her daughter, contested the finding, stating that there was a
power imbalance as it was seven against one.
I found both witnesses credible. Colon for respondent testified clearly and
provided evidence through his witness statements and reports to bolster his testimony.
J.G. also testified clearly about the events of the day and the effect on her daughter. The
issue is not a credibility or facts issue, but what constitutes HIB.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in
school and off school premises.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). Under the Act, “harassment,
intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined as:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any
electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a
series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,
such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a
mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other
distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights
of other students and that:
a. a reasonable person should know, under the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically
or emotionally harming a student or damaging
the student’s property, or placing a student in
reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to
his person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student or group of students; or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
6
c. creates a hostile educational environment for
the student by interfering with a student’s
education or by severely or pervasively causing
physical or emotional harm to the student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides for a
prompt response to any alleged HIB incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(a). Once an alleged
HIB incident is reported to the school principal, the principal or their designee must initiate
an investigation within one school day of receiving the report. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)(6)(a). A school anti-bullying specialist shall conduct the investigation, which must
be completed within ten school days from the date of notification of the incident. Ibid.
The results of the investigation shall then be quickly reported to the superintendent of
schools, who may take certain remedial action. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b). The results
shall also be reported to the board of education “no later than the date of the board of
education meeting next following the completion of the investigation, along with
information on any services provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other
action taken or recommended by the superintendent.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
Under the Act, the parents of students involved in any alleged HIB incident are
entitled to receive information about the nature and results of the investigation. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). Parents may request a hearing before the board, which must be held
within ten days of the request. Ibid. Any hearing shall be held in executive session to
protect the identity of any students involved. The board may hear from the anti-bullying
specialist regarding the incident, recommendations for discipline or services, and any
programs implemented to prevent such incidents. Ibid. The board must issue a decision
at the first meeting after receiving the investigation report. The board may affirm, reject,
or modify the superintendent’s decision. The board’s decision may be appealed to the
Commissioner of Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e).
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
7
332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966). The Commissioner will not substitute
their judgment for that of a board of education, whose exercise of discretion may not be
disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App.
Div. 1960). Our courts have held that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is
not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even
though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore
Sew. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J.
Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Thus, to prevail, petitioner must demonstrate that the Board
acted in bad faith or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it. T.B.M. v.
Moorestown Bd. of Educ., 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 67 (February 6, 2008) (citing Thomas,
89 N.J. Super. at 332).
Against this backdrop, J.G. challenges respondent’s determination that on
December 12, 2024, numerous students did not commit an act of HIB against K.G. First,
J.G. contends that respondent erred in its determination that the December 12, 2024,
incident did not constitute HIB because that determination was unsubstantiated. I
disagree.
Colon conducted a thorough and prompt investigation. Colon found that K.G. as
well as the group of girls who approached and eventually pushed K.G. appeared to be in
a mutual confrontation constituting a conflict rather than HIB. This was not disputed by
petitioner, who admits K.G. was also exchanging words and gestures with the other girls.
Petitioner does not identify what characteristic is distinguishing about K.G. beyond
saying that the characteristic was the power imbalance. A power imbalance is, alone,
insufficient to substantiate a finding of HIB.
As no distinguishing characteristic was identified by the District, let alone petitioner,
petitioner has failed to show that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable manner when it found that no act of HIB was committed during the
December 12, 2024, incident. Further, Colon reviewed all available video footage,
interviews, and reports but found no evidence of HIB between K.G. and the other students

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
8
but a clear conflict. Because the alleged incidents could not be substantiated as a HIB, I
CONCLUDE that the actions of respondent in determining that the December 12, 2024,
incident did not constitute HIB were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
ORDER
Following my conclusions above, I ORDER that J.G.’s Petition of Appeal be and
hereby is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days, and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
9
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
July 13, 2026 _______________________________
DATE MICHAEL R. STANZIONE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date emailed to Parties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
10
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
J.G.
For respondent:
James Colon
Exhibits
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
R-B Mendez HIB 338 Form
R-C Investigation Report 1/24/25
R-D Initial Investigation Incident #B007
R-E J.G. HIB 338 Form
R-F 12/18/24 Email Chain
R-G Victim Interview Statement—K G.
R-H Victim Incident Statement—K.G.
R-I Alleged Offender Statement—A.J.
R-J Alleged Offender Statement—M.K.
R-K Alleged Offender Statement—Z.C.
R-L Alleged Offender Statement—T.Y.
R-M Alleged Offender Statement—I.L.
R-N Alleged Offender Statement—A.T.
R-O Alleged Offender Statement—V.W.
R-P Witness Statement—I.O.
R-Q Witness Statement—A.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12515-25
11
R-R Witness Statement—B.T.
R-S 1/27/25 Letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding HIB investigation
R-T Letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding the conclusion of the HIB
investigation.
R-U 3/13/25 Letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding the result of the appeal
hearing.